Bin Laden To Be Announced As Kiiled

[Darius871]

Give me that one and a half minutes of my life back.

[Felch]

But the U.S. isn't a religious entity. If Islam taught that conquering the world is a good and just thing, and most Muslims supported that idea, then there would be no reason to even try to cover it up, especially in AQ recruiting videos aimed at the ultra-faithful. Again, I'm contending with the notion that Muslims as a group want to conquer the world, which just isn't true.

Muslims aren't Swiss. They haven't been content sitting around their mountains winding watches, making chocolate and hiding Nazi gold. They spread in a hundred years from India to the Atlantic, and they didn't stop there. Do you seriously not believe that Islam is an evangelical religion? Do you not believe that Muslims are expected to spread the faith? Don't you realize that the whole point of this is to make the entire world Muslim? They're just like Christians, they can't let souls go to Satan. Letting people not be Muslims is an uncharitable act. After all, if they're not Muslim then they'll burn in hell for all eternity.

World conquest wouldn't necessarily involve violence, ideally we would all just see the error of our ways and read the Koran and convert. But some people are impatient and want to hurry things along. Mohammed, the ideal Muslim, happened to be one of those people.

Why are you guys so intent on avoiding the idea that Muslim extremists are actually being honest in their statements that they are driven by perceived grievances against the U.S. and other Western powers? You know you don't have to believe their point of view is correct while accepting that those are indeed their actual reasons, right?

Oh, I believe that some are driven by that, but others are certainly driven by a missionary fervor. I just think that you're being obtuse. Let's say that France were reoccupied by Germany, and America was committed to liberating it. I'd want America to be powerful and victorious in all things, and I would want our French allies to be liberated. World domination would be part of my motivation, but I wouldn't expect official propaganda to say that. You'd want the altruism highlighted, not the jingoism. People can be motivated by different things, and smart propagandists will try to motivate people with the most appropriate strategy.

[Whoha]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say this seriously before besides Bush.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

He definitely hates us for our freedoms

[DaShi]

So 2nd is now main?

[Berzerker]

they didn't attack us because we had an army in their holy land enforcing deadly sanctions on Iraqis, they woke up one day and saw us "free" people on the other side of the world enjoying our freedom and freaked out and decided to come here and attack us...

[KrazyHorse]

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

I used to base my life around 4 of those 5. 3/5 now.

*insert homosexual joke at my expense here

[Boris Godunov]

Muslims aren't Swiss. They haven't been content sitting around their mountains winding watches, making chocolate and hiding Nazi gold. They spread in a hundred years from India to the Atlantic, and they didn't stop there.

Yeah. 1,400 years ago. When was the last time a Muslim state conquered a non-Muslim one?

And how much forcible conversions occurred even when they did? Note the link to Prof. Lewis' views above.

Do you seriously not believe that Islam is an evangelical religion? Do you not believe that Muslims are expected to spread the faith?

Jesus H. Christ, please read:

Evangelism != world conquest, now does it?

You're not even understanding what's being argued, which was SpencerH's stupid and blatantly incorrect assertion that a fundamental tenet of Islam IS to forcibly conquer the world and force people to Islam. That's what I was arguing against. Furthermore, as it relates to the whole inane "They hate our freedoms!" argument: no, they don't care about our freedoms, because they're too busy being concerned about the festering pile of **** that constitutes the political situations across the current Muslim world.

You are persisting in an argument with me that isn't even really occurring, because you can't grasp what's being argued.

[SlowwHand]

The photo I saw, there was little gray in the beard. I guess he was using Grecian Formula while he was lounging around? Seems odd.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah. 1,400 years ago. When was the last time a Muslim state conquered a non-Muslim one?

Probably Sultan Aurangzeb's conquests of Hindu Mysore and the Deccan in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

Boris, your history is bad if you think Islamic expansion stopped during the Umayyad Caliphate.

However, I can't think of an Islamic state conquering a non-Islamic one since the early 18th century. Islam has been on the defensive since then.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

since US won the war on terror, it may be the time to win the war on deficit

[MikeH]

Still got the War on Drugs to win!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and war on copyright infringement!!

[SpencerH]

My point is since Mohammed is the only real authority, and since he was a political and religious leader, then Islam does not distinguish. Obviously it's not true for the Shi'ites, but AQ doesn't view them as Muslim.

Your point is valid in historical but not practical terms. True political and religious power functionally seperated in Islam fairly early on (cant remember exactly when but early Abbasids sounds right) .

King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques

Sorry, I dont accept that Abdullah wields religious power. I suppose from your perspective one might argue that he's a close enough fit to the early Caliphs except for the 'will of the people'.

[Dinner]

Well, at least this knocked off the stupid royal wedding replays from the TV.

[Dinner]

Again, show me where Christ said it was ok to convert someone by force. Christian perverts may have decided to do so but not at Christ's instigation. The same is not true for the 'words of the prophet' and Islam. To me it is a fundamental difference (no pun intended).

"I like your Christ but I find your Christians to be totally unlike him." - Gandhi

Its hard for me to bother with arguments about religion though since they all seem to be such negative things over all. Sure, I suppose we could argue over which was more negative then the others but that doesn't sound like an interesting conversation.